Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
--Boundary_(ID_gZvVj0Kq0M7Y5wQoFokIgg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Trey wrote: > guy, et al, before we go into a discussion that is > based on false beliefs , hearsay,.unsubstantiated > methods, Funny, I think that's my line. > and other theories that hold no water in > real life or have any grip on the total physiology > of decompression at all, why don't we first let you > tell us what 15,000 man dive hours of decompression Are we talking about the famed U.S. Navy tables? They have a great track record, don't they? Again, this is just poor marketing Trey. The U.S. Navy tables exceed this requirement of yours, yet have poor reception in diving circles, apparently they have poor statistics from a DCS incidence rate. Being extensively tested is one thing. You don't happen to have a URL for the statistics kept by WKPP, do you? > > testing you have done on what were previous > considered "extreme exposures", how you came to use > the gases you use from those results,what if any > decompression diving or experience with others doing > the diving you have done or participated in ( and > that goes for the punk mouth student who brought > this up), and then what military, commercial and > other data and experience you are drawing from , > what Doppler results you got on these tests ( like > we use ) Congratulations, we've also got a doppler, that was easy. Fortunately, I don't claim to have such vast experience. I am concerned with what I practice though, and with what others have to share. In the end, what I, and most other divers are left with in the real world are some theoretical models, and pieces of software that assist us in planning dives, fexibility really is an asset. Your claim to having empirical data on decompression really doesn't help anybody out here. This is just like all those custom tables used by the oil industry, practically useless to the decompression diver. "Darn, I don't have the Shell oil deco schedule, I just have the Chevron." When the WKPP, or it's proponents, come up here and put there stuff up for public display, and tell folks they should be doing this way, or that way, it doesn't come as a complete surprise that things are going to be inspected in detail. The whole issue of breaks has never been dealt with. It's another oversight in the model. Yes, the model is one thing, and so on. But ask the decompression diver, whether or not he is diving as per the WKPP method and if he is using any empirical data from the WKPP, and the answer, will likely be: No. > and then lets talk about what WORKS, and > what does not. Funny, I seem to believe that many possible scenarios work. Your camp seems to think only one scenario works. I'm sure you folks are more reasonable than this. > > > Start there or go on over to the "decompression > list" where they like to yap and banter in theory . > People on here want to know what works in real life, > what will hold up as their dives get bigger and they > get outside of their dive class ,and what makes the > most sense for all the right reasons. If you can't > do that, you can step aside and listen. Fine, I'll join the list. But tell us Trey, the major reason for the 50/100 decompression regime is for logistical reasons, isn't it? Cost, time, effort, and consistency of results. > > > > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. -- Guy --Boundary_(ID_gZvVj0Kq0M7Y5wQoFokIgg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Trey wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>guy, et al, before we go into a discussion that is <br>based on false beliefs , hearsay,.unsubstantiated <br>methods,</blockquote> Funny, I think that's my line. <br> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>and other theories that hold no water in <br>real life or have any grip on the total physiology <br>of decompression at all, why don't we first let you <br>tell us what 15,000 man dive hours of decompression</blockquote> Are we talking about the famed U.S. Navy tables? <br>They have a great track record, don't they? Again, <br>this is just poor marketing Trey. The U.S. Navy <br>tables exceed this requirement of yours, yet have poor <br>reception in diving circles, apparently they have <br>poor statistics from a DCS incidence rate. Being <br>extensively tested is one thing. You don't happen <br>to have a URL for the statistics kept by WKPP, do you? <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <br>testing you have done on what were previous <br>considered "extreme exposures", how you came to use <br>the gases you use from those results,what if any <br>decompression diving or experience with others doing <br>the diving you have done or participated in ( and <br>that goes for the punk mouth student who brought <br>this up), and then what military, commercial and <br>other data and experience you are drawing from , <br>what Doppler results you got on these tests ( like <br>we use )</blockquote> Congratulations, we've also got a doppler, that was easy. <br>Fortunately, I don't claim to have such vast experience. <br>I am concerned with what I practice though, and with <br>what others have to share. In the end, what I, and most <br>other divers are left with in the real world are some theoretical <br>models, and pieces of software that assist us in planning <br>dives, fexibility really is an asset. Your claim to having <br>empirical data on decompression really doesn't help <br>anybody out here. This is just like all those custom tables <br>used by the oil industry, practically useless to the <br>decompression diver. "Darn, I don't have the Shell oil <br>deco schedule, I just have the Chevron." <p>When the WKPP, or it's proponents, come up here <br>and put there stuff up for public display, and tell <br>folks they should be doing this way, or that way, <br>it doesn't come as a complete surprise that things <br>are going to be inspected in detail. <p>The whole issue of breaks has never been dealt with. <br>It's another oversight in the model. Yes, the model is <br>one thing, and so on. But ask the decompression diver, <br>whether or not he is diving as per the WKPP method <br>and if he is using any empirical data from the WKPP, and <br>the answer, will likely be: No. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>and then lets talk about what WORKS, and <br>what does not.</blockquote> Funny, I seem to believe that many possible scenarios <br>work. Your camp seems to think only one scenario works. <br>I'm sure you folks are more reasonable than this. <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <p>Start there or go on over to the "decompression <br>list" where they like to yap and banter in theory . <br>People on here want to know what works in real life, <br>what will hold up as their dives get bigger and they <br>get outside of their dive class ,and what makes the <br>most sense for all the right reasons. If you can't <br>do that, you can step aside and listen.</blockquote> Fine, I'll join the list. <p>But tell us Trey, the major reason for the 50/100 decompression <br>regime is for logistical reasons, isn't it? Cost, time, effort, and <br>consistency of results. <blockquote TYPE=CITE> </blockquote> <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <p>-- <br>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. <br>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.</blockquote> <pre>-- Guy</pre> </html> --Boundary_(ID_gZvVj0Kq0M7Y5wQoFokIgg)-- -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]